Consensus rankings

BT is correct, as usual.

UM finished #2 in the conference in 2006 based on their head to head win over Wiscy. (Both finished with 7-1 conference records.)

Overall winning records do not count, unless the teams do not play each other.

That is why Michigan got the nod to go to the Rose Bowl, over third place Wisconsin.

Big Ten Tie Breakers

 

Thanks.

Big Ten Conference
Standings/Schedules
Standings
Schedule
Conference Standings
2006 Big Ten Conference
Conference Standings
Games Through Jan. 8



Conference Points Overall Points
Team W L T For Opp Pct W L T For Opp Pct
---- - - - --- --- --- - - - --- --- ---
Ohio State.......... 8 0 0 305 92 1.000 12 1 0 450 166 .923
Wisconsin........... 7 1 0 245 116 .875 12 1 0 380 157 .923
Michigan............ 7 1 0 213 104 .875 11 2 0 380 207 .846
Penn State.......... 5 3 0 135 117 .625 9 4 0 290 187 .692
Purdue.............. 5 3 0 165 179 .625 8 6 0 364 374 .571
Minnesota........... 3 5 0 202 243 .375 6 7 0 376 338 .462
Indiana............. 3 5 0 179 302 .375 5 7 0 277 394 .417
Iowa................ 2 6 0 174 192 .250 6 7 0 310 269 .462
Northwestern........ 2 6 0 125 240 .250 4 8 0 198 314 .333
Michigan State...... 1 7 0 148 241 .125 4 8 0 302 341 .333
Illinois............ 1 7 0 155 220 .125 2 10 0 235 321 .167

http://bigten.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/stats/2006-2007/confsked.html

So, the conference that "can't count" ... can't rank, either. Maybe this explains "the point differential" :?: :?:

:wink:

Maybe not. Seems you link and this link ....

http://bigten.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/102204aad.html

indicate how the conference will select the team for the automatic BCS bid and the Rose Bowl. The link I provided gives info on the Rose Bowl selection. Anyway, I don't think either indicates Wisconsin was not the (or tied for ) #2 in the Big10/11. Weren't they ranked higher than Mich in the final 2006 polls?

 

The Rose Bowl is our top bowl.

In years that the Rose Bowl isn't the NC game it gets the B10 Champion...if the B10 Champ goes to the NC game the Rose Bowl gets the runner-up. The tie breaker is as indicated.

You certainly have our permission to label them as "co-runner-ups" or "tied for #2" if that makes you feel vindicated...but they lost the tie-breaker and took the #3 slot in the bowl line-ups.

 

Okay ... but why then would the Big-10/11 conference web site list Wisc in the second spot and Michigan in the third slot?

 

I didn't see a #1, #2, or #3 listed there...

The computer lists that go out to newspapers throughout the season list the teams first by conference record then by overall record. I assume that is where that list came from. The tie-breakers aren't included because they don't come into play until the bowls are decided. Overall record is NOT used in seeding the bowls unless the teams didn't play each other.

Generally, if you tie for 6th place you tie for 6th place. Co-champions are co-champions...the tie-breakers are used for bowl seeding.

So you can look at it how you choose...Wisconsin was the co-runner up but they lost the tie breaker for the bowl seeding.

But regardless of how you look at it Michigan was not #3.

I will accept Wiscy as a tie for #2.

But I still say BT was correct in his assertion as well...Wiscy assumed the "role" of our third place qualifier.

 

Hmmmm ............ I don't know, can't put my finger on it but there is something about that Big-10/11 web site that makes me think it's the conference "standings" or rankings ...................

http://bigten.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/stats/2006-2007/confsked.html

Big Ten Conference
Standings/Schedules
Standings
Schedule

Conference Standings

2006 Big Ten Conference
Conference Standings
Games Through Jan. 8

Conference Points Overall Points
Team W L T For Opp Pct W L T For Opp Pct
---- - - - --- --- --- - - - --- --- ---
Ohio State.......... 8 0 0 305 92 1.000 12 1 0 450 166 .923
Wisconsin........... 7 1 0 245 116 .875 12 1 0 380 157 .923
Michigan............ 7 1 0 213 104 .875 11 2 0 380 207 .846
Penn State.......... 5 3 0 135 117 .625 9 4 0 290 187 .692
Purdue.............. 5 3 0 165 179 .625 8 6 0 364 374 .571
Minnesota........... 3 5 0 202 243 .375 6 7 0 376 338 .462
Indiana............. 3 5 0 179 302 .375 5 7 0 277 394 .417
Iowa................ 2 6 0 174 192 .250 6 7 0 310 269 .462
Northwestern........ 2 6 0 125 240 .250 4 8 0 198 314 .333
Michigan State...... 1 7 0 148 241 .125 4 8 0 302 341 .333
Illinois............ 1 7 0 155 220 .125 2 10 0 235 321 .167


I don't know, maybe they gave Wisc the nod for #2 based upon the better record and the strength of their BIG win over Arkansas in their bowl game?

 

Believe what you want...Michigan took the runner-up bowl slot.

Here is a link to CFP's 2007 football preview;

2007 Big Ten Preview

 

Well, I'm just providing information from the Big-10/11 web site in response to this assertion .......

and this assertion .....

Seems if Michigan was #2 and Wisc was #3 .... the Big-10/11 web site would NOT have this presentation:

Conference Standings
Games Through Jan. 8
Conference Points Overall Points
Team W L T For Opp Pct W L T For Opp Pct
---- - - - --- --- --- - - - --- --- ---
Ohio State.......... 8 0 0 305 92 1.000 12 1 0 450 166 .923
Wisconsin........... 7 1 0 245 116 .875 12 1 0 380 157 .923
Michigan............ 7 1 0 213 104 .875 11 2 0 380 207 .846

 

Also this quote from ESPN's 2007 preview;

 

M's victory over Wisky would have given them the nod and was evidenced by their BCS Rose selection. Wisky was given the Big 10's #3 bowl slot opposite SEC championship game participant and runner-up Arkansas.

 

You've posted that same list four times (though that is a Big 10 count on my part so probably suspect)...at least I am trying to bring in different references.

We read it...we saw it...I'm debating it...we know what it says...you don't have to keep pasting it.

Sorry everybody else...I know this must be getting REAL tiresome...I'll stop here and let everybody who is interested (Big 10 count says nobody) decide for themselves.

 

Well apparently, the Big-10/11 is satisfied to list Wisc in the #2 slot and Mich in the #3 slot in their own standings as published on their web site ..... with Mich going to the Rose and Wisc going to the Cap-1.

It's really hard to make the assertion (and claim it is correct) that Wisc was #3 in the Big-10/11 after the 2006 season. Seemingly they tied .... and were listed in reverse alphabetical order??

But alas, this doesn't really do anything to mitigate the profound weakness in the "assertion" that the aforemention 2-1 record in three recent bowl games between B-10 and SEC teams in any way "improves' the strength of the opposition faced by the 2006 and 2007 Big 10 champ, when the aggregate winning % of its conference opposition during the 2006 and 2007 seasons was only .520 over 202 games.

 

Must be harder to make the assumption that the #3 team went to the premier bowl and the #2 team got the consolation bowl...but that's ok...just change the subject like you just did.

 

What I would like to know Gaterz is just what the hell difference does it make except to rile up other fans?

 

Wow...this comment is from the Big Ten preview of College Football News.

I had no idea those guys were reading my posts on Skybox..... :lol:

....and it has been strongly suggested on this board that only Gaterz and I have negative assessments of the Big Ten because we just want to flame and there is no merit in what we are saying..... :roll: :roll:

I think a dose of reality is in order.....

 

How about this

<t>Its been proven that the Big Televen's bowl struggles are actually the product of playing Pac10 and Big12 teams. They've had a rough go of it but the SEC is only at .500 recently (if I remember the timeline of the article MCG posted a while back) with the Big10.<br/>
<br/>
Can we just let this non-sense die?<br/>
<br/>
Kickoff seriously can't get here soon enough...</t>

 

Ok much more and this topic and at least one other one are going to get locked.

MCG and Gaterz, these so called sensitive Big 10 fans never seem to have any trouble getting along with the other posters here until one or both of you start with the negative Big 10 stuff. Seems a pretty obvious cause and effect to me.

 

Well, I hate to continue this discussion but I must take issue with one of your points .... the problem with the rather extraordinary reactions (ie flames) to these discussions of a particular school's SOS over the last few seasons ..... is really only coming from one or two individuals.

Carry on with the bashing.

 

Gaterz, you have the number right, two bashing, but I think we are in deep disagreement as to which two.

 

It's definitely vague as to how analytical commentary get's viewed as bashing and flaming.

I know how to flame if I so desired but that's not why I post what I post.

Just because my opinion is not cozy and snuggly with someone's else's doesn't make it wrong and doesn't make it a flame either.

Should we always just agree to agree because we should?

Is that a Skybox rule?